Chuck’s Commentary - Republicans Avoid Disaster In Tennessee, But The Midterms Look Great For Democrats + Top 5 Senate Seats A “Wave” Election Could Put In Play - The Chuck ToddCast

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Having good life insurance is incredibly important. I know from
personal experience. I was sixteen when my father passed away.
We didn't have any money. He didn't leave us in
the best shape. My mother single mother, now widow, myself
sixteen trying to figure out how am I going to
pay for college and lo and behold, my dad had
one life insurance policy that we found wasn't a lot,

(00:22):
but it was important at the time, and it's why
I was able to go to college. Little did he
know how important that would be in that moment. Well,
guess what. That's why I am here to tell you
about Etho's life. They can provide you with peace of
mind knowing your family is protected even if the worst
comes to pass. Ethos is an online platform that makes

(00:44):
getting life insurance fast and easy, all designed to protect
your family's future in minutes, not months. There's no complicated
process and it's one hundred percent online. There's no medical
exam require you just answer a few health questions online.
You can get a quote and it's a little ten minutes,
and you can get same day coverage without ever leaving
your home. You can get up to three million dollars

(01:06):
in coverage and some policies start as low as two
dollars a day that would be billed monthly. As of
March twenty twenty five, Business Insider named Ethos the number
one no medical exam instant life insurance provider. So protect
your family with life insurance from Ethos. Get your free
quoted Ethos dot com slash chuck. So again, that's Ethos

(01:27):
dot com slash chuck. Application times may vary and the
rates themselves may vary as well, but trust me, life
insurance is something you should really think about it, especially
if you've got a growing family. Hello, they're happy Wednesday,
and welcome to another episode of the Chuck Podcast. Well,
one of my favorite sayings used to be, if it

(01:49):
was Tuesday, somebody's voting somewhere, which means, if it's Wednesday,
we have some election results. And this happens to be
no ordinary Wednesday. It's a day after a special election.
I know the most devoted of your time podcast subscribers
and listeners caught our live stream or I hope caught
our live stream election show and partnership with Decision Desk
HQ and Chris Solisa. We were essentially watching the returns

(02:14):
with those that chose to watch with us, and we
had another huge turnout. We are overwhelmed by the response
we've been getting for these election night specials. Let's just say,
you're you're only encouraging us to do this more and more.
But in some ways, this is one of those special

(02:34):
elections where both parties are going to take something away
that they feel better about. Both parties are going to
look at this and say what could have been for
different rays, And in another way you look at it
is in some ways it changes nothing. It taught us
nothing we didn't already know. So I'm gonna start with
that part right. In some ways, this special election went

(02:54):
as expected.

Speaker 2 (02:55):
What do I mean by that?

Speaker 1 (02:56):
Well, as Jeffrey Scaling said there at the end, it's
like the final margin of victory looks like to be
somewhere around, you know, somewhere between four and six percentage points,
which means you're looking at it at approximately a sixteen
to eighteen point Democratic over performance based on the twenty
twenty four results, which is exactly pretty much in line

(03:16):
with what we've seen with various special elections. We've had
some special congressional elections. Two that happened in Florida one
had a sixteen point over performance, another one actually had
a twenty three point over performance for Democrats. Both were
still Republican victories like this one, but there was this
over performance right super red districts that suddenly got much
closer in a special election. In some Democratic victories, their

(03:41):
over performance has been in the sixteen to eighteen point range.
Why do I keep using this number sixteen to eighteen
And no, I'm not saying six seven. I'm not participating
in that nonsense. But the importance of that sixteen to
eighteen point range is that it's about the same number
that we saw in twenty seventeen and twenty eighteen special
elections going into that mid cycle, where that over performance

(04:02):
did end up translating to a good Democratic Knight. But
of course the question is is twenty twenty six going
to be another twenty eighteen or it's twenty twenty six
going to be something bigger, something akin to what Republican
You know, Republicans nineteen ninety four they swept both the
House and the Senate, or Democrats two thousand and six,
where they swept both the House and the Senate. When

(04:24):
you have a to me at this point, a wave
is when you're the party out of power, you're not
holding either of the House and Senate, and after the
wave hits, you end up controlling both the House and
the Senate. And I think the question we're all looking
for is, is this in a political environment that is
developing into a wave for the Democrats right to You know,

(04:47):
we love our weather metaphors as political prognosticator types, and
there's clearly a storm brewing, and the question is is
this going to be you know, to use hurricane terms,
a Cat two, a Cat three, a Cat four, a
Cat five. Right, if it's a Cat one, Republicans probably
can hold both the House and the Senate. If it's
simply a Cat two or a Cat three type of storm,

(05:07):
where it's a bigger Democratic turnout than Republican turnout, more
enthusiasm on the left than the right, but the money's
kind of equal, the candidate performance is kind of equal.
You know, that's an environment that the Democrats probably wouldn't
control the House.

Speaker 2 (05:22):
But come up short in the Senate.

Speaker 1 (05:25):
This thing gets bigger than that and it becomes where
they can win both the House and the Senate, where
you start to have more retirements, and you have lopsided
candidate issues. And that's what we were watching for tonight, Right,
was the bottom going to fall out for Republicans. It's
been a rough couple of months for Republicans in general,
Donald Trump specifically.

Speaker 2 (05:46):
The narrative is not going well. The headlines aren't going well.

Speaker 1 (05:49):
Right, you look at the MAGA coalition and there's been
a lot of cracks in that coalition. Marjorie Taylor Green.
The Jeffrey Epstein files created cracks. What's happening in Venezuela,
in Israel, in Ukraine has created some cracks. And it's
you know, it's a reminder, you know, Trump Trump put
together this coalition that doesn't really share any sort of

(06:09):
ideological values other than they don't like the left right.
There's a cultural bind that keeps this coalition together, but
there's not really an issue bind that keeps this coalition together,
you know, And so if you start to see fracture,
it's fracture that may be really hard to put back together.

(06:32):
And I think the fear Republicans had about this special
election in Tennessee that a loss would essentially lead to
the bottom falling out. And what does the bottom falling
out look like for Republicans, another ten to fifteen House
members deciding to retire and not seek reelection, maybe a
senator or two. That you don't that Republicans thought we're

(06:55):
going to seek reelection. That says, you know what, I'm
out of here. I'm not going to do this. I'm gonna.

Speaker 2 (07:02):
I don't want to.

Speaker 1 (07:04):
Either be in the minority or worse risk losing my seat.
I don't want to go out that way. And a
loss in this special election would have been that, but
that didn't happen, right, So I think what we have
is you have Republicans feeling as if, Okay, there's a
way to survive these midterms. They can survive the storm
that's coming. It's not going to be pretty. They may

(07:26):
lose some windows, they may lose a piece of their roof.
That's the equivalent of losing House seats and losing control
of the House. Maybe the Senate goes from a three
seat advantage down to a one seat advantage, but they
hang on to some power in Congress, and it's not

(07:47):
a total loss if you're Donald Trump, and if you
look at and I think that that's what each party's
going to take away from this, right, I think the
Democrats are going to look and say, look, we got
an enthusiasm advantage. Voters are ready to walk on broken
glass to show up. The turnout in this special election
was was very high, but it also meant it engaged

(08:08):
the other side too. I think a lot of Democrats
are going to whisper today that hey there, you know,
imagine if they had a candidate that ideologically fit the
district better. Right this If you remember the famous Connor
Lamb special election of twenty seventeen and twenty eighteen, that
was sort of the first big, you know, sort of
tea leaf that when Connor Lamb won a district that

(08:29):
had been a double digit Republican district and he won
that special election, that was like whoa. And I remember
at the time Republicans were going, well, Democrats won't find
candidates like that in all these races. But it was
an acknowledgment that the Democrats had found almost the perfect
candidate to run in that district. That is not Aftenban, Right,

(08:51):
she was definitely the progressive in the primary. She was
outspent in the primary by more establishment candidates, and you know,
she was the more democratic socialist leaning candidate, if you will,
I think even you know had some kind things to
say about it. Let's just say anything she had said
positively about democratic socialism or progressive politics. Republicans found and

(09:13):
used it in their at and she ended up being,
in some ways the referendum in this race, right. It
was Republicans wanted this to be a referendum on her
and left wing politics. Democrats were hoping this would be
a referendum on prices, the economy, and Donald Trump. And
the fact of the matter is they both succeeded.

Speaker 2 (09:32):
Right.

Speaker 1 (09:33):
Democrats succeeded in getting a turnout that made this race
incredibly competitive, fairly close, probably as close as they realistically
could have gotten it given the makeup of this district.
But Republicans got the nominee they wanted, right, And I
think that's what Democrats are going to ask themselves the
special had they had a Jim Cooper like Democrat. And

(09:55):
for those of you who are familiar with old Tennessee politics,
Jim Cooper was sort of an old school blue dog Democrat,
which was code for more you know, he was closer
to Joe Manchin on the ideological scale than even say
Chuck Schumer. Okay, I'm not even saying, you know, going
to AOC definitely was more center left than just mainstream liberal.

(10:16):
And I think that's going to be a fair, a
fair piece of analysis that you know, would that have
would that have been the difference? Right? A couple of
points been harder to paint, you know, somebody like a
Jim Cooper as a radical. But then you got to
ask yourself, if you're Republicans, can you do this in
forty races? Can you do this for thirty districts that

(10:37):
you've got to defend? Because it's going to be somewhere. Now,
you know, anything that is our anything that Donald Trump
won by say twelve to fifteen points, I think now
is a house seat. Realistically, the Democrats, that they find
the right candidate can potentially put in play. So, you know,
can they run the kind of camp essentially emergency triage

(10:58):
campaign that Republicans came in and ran. And by the way,
they deserve credit for this because you know, failing to
answer the bell on these warning signs and losing this
would have led to a total catastrophe. So doing the
triage sort of bought them some time and probably saved
a handful of retirements on this front, But can they

(11:19):
scale this right? You know, you might be able to
save a race here or a race there in this game,
but you're not going to be able to hope that
you get Democratic nominees that don't fit the district across
the country. Now, do I think Republicans are going to
get into the habit now of trying to actually play
in Democratic primaries, because that's been the biggest That's the

(11:42):
other difference between the twenty eighteen cycle and the twenty
twenty six cycle. In twenty eighteen, the Democratic leadership and
at that time, you know, and yes that included Schumer
and Pelosi, But back then they had a little more juice.
The Democratic Party had a little more credibility with its

(12:03):
own voters and donors that when they squeezed people out
of a primary, they listened and they said, hey, this
is who we were supporting, this is who the national
party wants. They could clear a primary field and they
could sort of minimize the number of nominees that we're
going to be too far to the left to win
general elections. They don't have that credibility this cycle. While

(12:27):
I think a bit more enthusiasm for Democrats. You also
have a national party that can't sit here and say
we're going to squeeze out this candidate, and the Michigan
Senate primary squeeze out and in some ways, an endorsement
from the national party for in certain primaries maybe a
kiss of death that it puts the scarlet e on

(12:49):
your coat for establishment right and in these days, being
part being seen as part of the political establishment, whether
you're on the left or the right, is not a
good place to be politically.

Speaker 2 (12:59):
So, you know.

Speaker 1 (13:02):
I think that the challenge the Democrats have is they
have a great environment building. In fact, if you look
at my latest substack, I kind of think we're I
think we're sort of underrating what is growing here. I
think this is when you look at it, Yes, things
look very similar as twenty eighteen, but I sense that
Trump's script on his own party is loosening a little bit.

(13:22):
And ask yourself over the next five months, what good
headlines are going to help a Republican that's going to
be on the ballot in twenty six Right, they're having
this argument over extending the Obamacare subsidies. In fact, I
believe that had Ashton Bain won this special had the
Democrat pulled the upset. I think you've seen those subsidy

(13:43):
extensions like happen within forty eight hours. I still think
they're going to happen because I think Trump is going
to flip a switch in his polster who's been warning
a lot of Republicans that healthcare could be the issue
that takes down the Republican majorities in both chambers. That
Trump will end up weighing in and doing a one
year or two year extension because he just wants to

(14:05):
get that. They want to mitigate the damage. Not extending
these healthcare subsidies would do so. But the point is
just that fight alone, there's not positive headlines being created.
Those are negative. That's defensive headlines. Then you've got we've
got a Terra ruling that's coming. Well, no matter what
the ruling is, it's a bad I think.

Speaker 2 (14:25):
It's a bad headline for the Republicans.

Speaker 1 (14:26):
Right if if the Supreme Court upholds Trump's authority, well,
the market's going to go haywire. It means these tariffs
stay in place and the uneven economy continues, right, and
we have prices continue to rise, We continue to have
inflationary pressures, and we've weakened the global economy. And when
the global economy gets weaker, our economy can't get as strong.

(14:49):
You know, we might you know, I saw somebody cheering
on that that we you know Japan, you know, the
tariffs have really slowed down Japan's economy. That's not good
for America. Of Japan's economy, it goes into recession. That's
not anything to cheer. That's only going to hurt our economy.
Economies are too interconnected. So this is the naivete of

(15:10):
this whole teriff regime. But the more nationalistic we go
with our economic policy, the more nationalistic everybody else is
going to go with their economic policy. And that is
bad for prices, and that is bad for GDP growth
around the world, And it doesn't solve the income inequality problem,
and it just puts a sort of a wet blanket
over any economic growth. But you still have inflationary pressures, right,

(15:33):
Costs still go up because of these consumer taxes. We
call them tariffs, but they're nothing more than an additional tax, essentially,
a form of almost like a vat tax that Trump
has tried to institute here. But that's not going to
be a great headline. You've got what's happening in Venezuela,
where where you know, is this war even legal? Have

(15:55):
any of the you know, it's possible. Nothing is legal here, right,
There's been no congressional authority that you know is clear
to me that has given the president the authority to
do this. This definition of narco terrorism to me, is
a It is not something that's been tested in the courts,

(16:17):
whether you can truly I go to war and if
this is you know, is this a regular crime or
is it a homicide or a war crime. But either way,
the second strike attacking those that survived the first strike
in that first attack on the alleged Venezuelan and cocaine traffickers,

(16:39):
either one creates a congressional inquiry that again, this is
not a positive headline for the Republican Party and anybody
running for office. It is a headline that puts you
on the defensive at best, and if anything, may put
some Republicans in a place where they feel like they've
got a distance themselves from Donald Trump. Do you hate hangovers?

(17:02):
We'll say goodbye to hangovers. Out of office gives you
the social buzz without the next day regret. Their best
selling out of office gummies were designed to provide a mild,
relaxing buzz, boost your mood, and enhance creativity and relaxation.
With five different strengths, you can tailor the dose to
fit your vibe, from a gentle one point five milligram
micro dose to their newest fifteen milligram gummy for a

(17:24):
more elevated experience. Their THHC beverages and gummies are a modern,
mindful alternative to a glass of wine or a cocktail.
And I'll tell you this, I've given up booze. I
don't like the hangovers. I prefer the gummy experience. Soul
is a wellness brand that believes feeling good should be
fun and easy. Soul specializes in delicious HEMP derived THHD

(17:44):
and CBD products, all designed to boost your mood and
simply help you unwine so if you struggle to switch
off at night, Soul also has a variety of products
specifically designed to just simply help you get a better
night's sleep, including their top selling sleepy gummies. It's a
fan favorite for d restorative sleep, So bring on the
good vibes and treat yourself to Soul today. Right now,

(18:05):
Soul is offering my audience thirty percent off your entire order.
So go to get sold dot com use the promo
code toodcast. Don't forget that code. That's get sold dot
Com promo code toodcast for thirty percent off.

Speaker 2 (18:23):
You know, the more.

Speaker 1 (18:24):
Unpopular Trump is growing and his approval rating, his disapproval
rating continues to rise, and his his approval ratings floating downward.
I wouldn't say it's diving downward, but it continues to
float downward. You put all that together and you're going
to have in comment Republicans looking for ways to subtly
distance themselves from Trump. In fact, we saw it in

(18:45):
the special election. The most remarkable thing about the Matt
Van epsads is that they didn't use Donald Trump. Yes,
he phoned into a rally, right you know, and the
national media covered that rally, but you know that was
they did not want a picture of Donald Trump with
this candidate. He never used Trump's name, you know. He

(19:06):
certainly said I will fight for America first, and used radicals,
used different buzzwords that are very familiar buzzwords in maga circles.
But there was no use of Trump, and there are
going to be other Republicans are going to be looking
for specific places to start splitting from Trump. They may
do it on tariffs, they may do it on Venezuela,
they may do it on healthcare subsidies. But the point
is all of the near term events that are going

(19:30):
to impact this political environment, they all seem like negative
headlines right now for the Republicans. What is going to
be a positive headline that's coming up. Are we suddenly
going to see prices fall and saving these accounts grow
over the next six months. That doesn't seem likely. And
then there's the intangible here of Donald Trump and Trump fatigue.

(19:56):
Don't I think we underestimate the length of the you know,
of the hold he's had on our politics. Right it's
been now over ten years that he's essentially dominated politics.
His movements about ten years old. And if you look
at the history of modern political campaigns, at modern politics,
which I defined modern politics as essentially the end of

(20:17):
World War two to now, you know, these runs, these
sort of cult We've basically had a series of cult
to personalities. It's not that parties have have runs. It's
almost like political personalities have run, right. You know, Eisenhower
had himself of basically an eight to ten year run,
and Kennedy Johnson had eight to ten years, and Nixon

(20:38):
had his ten year period. You know, Carter was sort
of a four year interlude, and Reagan Bush dominated about
ten to twelve years, and Clinton had his eight to
ten years, and George W. Bush and then Barack Obama
and then we're in the air of Donald Trump. The
point is is that it's really hard to extend this
to eleven and twelve years successfully. Right by the ninety midterms,

(21:01):
everything was petering out for the Reagan coalition. By the
twenty oh two midterms, the Clinton or Clinton coalition was
completely gone. By twenty sixteen, we saw the Obama coalition
already fracturing. It kind of got put back together during
COVID for Biden, but that might have been a bit
of a COVID effect than anything else. So I don't

(21:25):
think we fully appreciate that we're at the end. We're
at the end stages here of the Trump era. Is
it going to go out with a whimper? Is it
going to go out with a bang? Is it going
to be escorted out by the voters or sort of
fade away. I think that's the only unknown here, right,
and it being escorted out by the voters is a

(21:46):
wipeout in.

Speaker 2 (21:47):
The twenty twenty six midterms.

Speaker 1 (21:49):
Fading away is you know, losing the House, holding the
Senate and staying competitive in twenty in twenty twenty eight
and so you know, I think that I am sort
of think I believe we're underestimating the sort of the
intangible Trump fatigue here. And the fact is, when this

(22:09):
economy sucks and the economy member did not suck in
twenty eighteen, that's a big difference between twenty eighteen and now.
You had a people felt pretty good about that economy
in twenty eighteen, and Democrats still won the House though
they lost two sentences. You're now going to have a
similar enthusiastic democratic environment, but with an economy that a

(22:29):
lot of people don't like. And I always say that
because you know, the stock market looks good, but the
real world looks uncomfortable and bad, right, And I think
it's because the issue of costs is really starting to pinch.

Speaker 2 (22:43):
And you know, now you've.

Speaker 1 (22:45):
Got the high cost of electric bills and that's starting
to hit and that's being connected to these a ideals.
And I just think that Trump Trump now instead of
being teflon don, he's now wearing some beltcrow and whether
it's his weekly pardons that become less and less defensible,
particularly this one of the former Honduran presidential cocaine trafficker.

Speaker 2 (23:05):
I mean, you know, on.

Speaker 1 (23:07):
One breath, Donald Trump is going after Venezuela because of
cocaine distribution, and in the next breath he's pardoning somebody
who's responsible for my massive cocaine distribution into this country.
Is the only difference that Roger Stone got paid for
one and didn't get paid for the other. I mean
that that is an uncomfortable thing. And there's not many

(23:27):
elected Republicans that want to have to defend that pardon.
And Trump's doing this almost on a weekly basis. Where
there's some pardon that you're like, oh, BOYD, does that stink?
That's impossible to defend. In a normal political environment, there
might be borderline impeachable offense. We're obviously not going to
head in that territory. But the point is is that
not only are the macro is the macro environment pretty

(23:51):
bleak right now? If you're an elected Republican and the
headlines that you know are coming, there's sort of the
what Trump is doing to you? And you know Trump
is not thinking about the Republican Party at all. Trump
never has right. It is about himself and whether it's
these pardons, whether it's these personal business deals that he

(24:11):
cuts on behalf of his son, the weird business relationships
that is chief envoy in these negotiations Steve Woodcoff is
involved with, and the mixing of all this, none of
that's defensible. And when people don't, if people are unhappy
about the economy, that stuff will then really irritate them.
They overlooked it the first four years. They overlooked it

(24:34):
maybe during the Biden presidency, but if they don't like
their current situation, they're really not going to like you
benefiting Donald Trump while they're in this tough situation. So
that's why I'm a bit more bearish on Republican chances
of holding each chamber. And I think that the for

(24:55):
those that follow these political prediction markets, I think everybody
is under under rating Democratic chances of winning the Senate.
There have been you know, since there have only been
six times six midterm elections, the first was eighteen ninety four,
but six midterm elections where the party not in power
in the White House won both the House and the

(25:17):
Senate in a midterm, It's only actually happened six times.
The last time was two thousand and six. On election day,
Republicans held both the House and Senate. By the time
all the votes are counted, Democrats had flipped both the
House and the Senate. The Republicans did flip them both
in ninety four. Then it happened again in the fifties,
and it happened again in the forties. The first time

(25:42):
it happened was eighteen ninety four, and it was Grover
Cleveland's second presidential term. In the midterm of that election,
and he was dealing with the depression of eighteen ninety three.
Republicans sweep the midterms in eighteen ninety four, and that
second non consecutive term. Is that familiar to anybody? Are

(26:03):
we dealing with a president in his second non consecutive term.
The out party sweeps in eighteen ninety four, and it
foreshadows a big Republican sweep in eighteen ninety six, which
leads to sixteen straight years of Republicans holding the presidency
until Woodrow Wilson's victory in nineteen twelve, so that's the
first time it happened. Here's what was interesting that we've

(26:26):
had thirty three midterm elections since eighteen ninety four, and
in twenty one of the thirty three the out party
picked up Senate seats, and in eighteen of those twenty
one instances the pickup was four or more Senate seats. Well,
Democrats only need four Senate seats to win control of
the Senate. I know the map's not great for them

(26:46):
when you're you know, and this is sometimes I question
whether Democrats are truly a national party because they don't.
They barely contest elections in a third of the states,
and I think that's why they may have a hard
time putting enough Senate seats in play with this particular
map that they have to run on. But if history
is any guide, the likelihood of them winning at least

(27:07):
four Senate seats is actually quite high. And so that's
why I think the bar I think people are underestimating
democratic chances here. Look, they still have a lot of
recruiting to do and finding a cannon in Kansas, finding
a ralling around a canad in Mississippi seeing if they
can target places like Kentucky or Alaska or Iowa. But

(27:29):
they've got to put a lot more races in play.
But history says they actually have a pretty good shot
at doing it, which leads me to the rest of
the rundown of this episode. I'm going to wrap things
up here in a second. Got a top five list
that actually goes well with what we're talking about tonight,
which is top five center races that Democrats if they
actually can put the Senate in play in twenty twenty six,

(27:51):
then of my top five list, one of them, at
least one of them has to be a single digit
race and very competitive by October if that's going to
become realistic.

Speaker 2 (28:02):
I'll let you.

Speaker 1 (28:04):
Get to the list before I tease which states are
in that. Of course, I have some Q and A,
so with that, Yes, I have a lot to say
about the College Football ESPN Invitational and all that nonsense,
but I'm going to save that for twenty four hours.
Get my thoughts together. I've poured my heart out about
all things Tennessee seven. I'd rather let that settle, let

(28:26):
that simmer, and I'll see in twenty four hours with
the hottest of hot takes, not just on the world
of politics, but on the ESPN Invitational and the.

Speaker 2 (28:39):
Leadership or lack thereof, inside the ACC So go Caines.
Thanks for listening. Let's sneak in a break.

Speaker 1 (28:48):
This episode of the Chuck Podcast is brought to you
by Waldgrain. Waldgrain is the first Bake from Frozen subscription
box for arteasaal breads, seasonal pastries and fresh pastas, plus
all items conveniently bake in twenty five minutes or less.
Unlike many store bought options, Wild Grain uses simple ingredients
you can pronounce and a slow fermentation process that can

(29:11):
be easier on your belly and richer in nutrients and antioxidants.
Wild Grains boxes are fully customizable. They're constantly adding seasonal
and limited tibing products for you to enjoy. In addition
to their classic box, they now feature a gluten free
box and a plant based box.

Speaker 2 (29:27):
I checked out the.

Speaker 1 (29:28):
Gluten free box and let me tell you they have
a gluten free sour dough bread.

Speaker 2 (29:33):
It is.

Speaker 1 (29:34):
We got two loads of it and we've done one
loaf already. It's a cranberry and almond sour dough bread.
It's like the best raisin bread you've ever had, except
it's not raisin.

Speaker 2 (29:43):
It's great. You're gonna love this.

Speaker 1 (29:46):
You know it's in or miss if you mess around
in the gluten free bread world.

Speaker 2 (29:50):
This is a hit.

Speaker 1 (29:51):
Seriously, I was impressed. So look for a limited time,
Wild Grain is offering our listeners thirty dollars off your
first box plus free croissants in every box when you
go to wildgrain dot com slash podcast to start your subscription,
follow these instructions. Free croissants in every box, thirty dollars
off your first box when you go to wildgrain dot
com slash podcast. That's wild grain dot com slash podcast.

(30:14):
Or simply use the promo code podcast at checkout. Always
use the code, get the discount.

Speaker 2 (30:20):
I'm telling you it's excellent, excellent bread.

Speaker 1 (30:27):
So with that, I want to transition a bit. Look,
given what happened in Tennessee, I thought it would be
worth focusing my top five list before I get to
the ass check segment. I thought it would be worth
focusing the top five list this week on five Senate
races that are not competitive at the moment. They're Republican

(30:47):
health seats. But what I would call is blue WaveWatch
Senate seats top five, top top The five I'm going
to give you are or my five nominees for what
happens in an actual wave, is that a Senate race

(31:09):
that was not on the map a year out ends
up flipping. In two thousand and six, there were sort
of three candidates. There were arguably four candidates for that.
Three candidates really for that, For that idea, you had
Virginia Senate at the time, a Democrat had n't want to,

(31:31):
you know, had Chuck rob But it was the sense
that Virginia was still a Republican state. George Bush carried
Virginia in two thousand and four. Democrat had and carried
carried in a presidential race since Carter in seventy six.
So the perception of Virginia was that it was a
tough place. So and Jim Webb was an unusual candidate.
George Allen was a prospective presidential candidate. It was a

(31:53):
race that developed late and popped on the radar late,
and then it was a flip. And then it turned
out to be a canary in the coal mine. It
turned out to foreshadow it was a growing shift of
Virginia from light red to now light blue. But each
one of those cycles, there's always a seat or two
that you're like, well, how did that happen? Sometimes it's

(32:14):
a special election win in the Senate side. Scott Brown's
victory in Massachusetts, it was it a seat that could
hold on his own in twenty twelve. Nope, that's what
gave us Elizabeth Warren. But in that unique environment, in
that moment in time, that's how much the ground had
shifted underneath Democrats when it came to the issue of
health care, and it certainly foreshadowed what was not a

(32:35):
very good mid term. So, with that caveats out of
the side, here are my nominees of the five you know,
and like I believe, I think all five of these
Senate seats have a chance to become shockingly competitive, and
I'll explain the unique circumstance for each of them, but
they are ones that have been written off right, And

(32:55):
I'm not even talking about Alaska. Texas don't make this
list because or or even Nebraska, because they're already seen
as quasi competitive at the moment. Right Alaska, especially if
Democrats get Mary Patello, Texas looks like it's going to
be competitive, no matter what part of it is demographics.
Part of it is Explain to me how John Corny
gets out of that gets fifty percent plus one after
a runoff. Really hard to see that, and without him

(33:17):
as the nominee, suddenly that becomes a winnable race. Although
the Democratic primary is a mess there. It's a topic
for another day. But these don't count those races to me.
You know, it's the job of the Democratic Party to
put those races in play because they're competitive enough sort
of on paper.

Speaker 2 (33:38):
Then then it.

Speaker 1 (33:38):
Becomes, hey, you should be able to find candidates, you
should be able to target those races. The five states
I'm going to be emphasizing here are not obvious. A
couple of them would have been ten years ago, but
they're not obvious at all. And what I would theorize
for you is that if Democrats, you know, if I
go into a coma and I wake up the day
after the mid terms and you tell me Democrats flip

(33:59):
the send, I'm going to guess one of these five
races was either actually flipped or was one of the
final was one of the six or seven Senate races
in the country that was decided by five points or less.
So here are my candidates for that, and I'll put
in an order of least likely to end up on

(34:22):
that last minute competitive slate to most likely. So I'm
going to start with my home state of Florida. I
think there's still a competitive nature to the state of Florida.
I think there's definitely some sort of Republican fatigue in general.

Speaker 2 (34:36):
I think the.

Speaker 1 (34:37):
Governor's race still has a shot at getting competitive. There's
a couple of quality candidates on the Democratic side. We're
not seeing the same level of energy or interest on
the Democratic side on the Senate race as much. Ashley Moody,
of course, is running to fill out the rest of
Marco Rubio's term after he left to become Secretary of State,
National Security Advisor, Head of the Archives, etc. All the

(34:58):
different jobs that he still holds. So he does hold
all three of those that I just mentioned. And you know,
it just it's a very expensive state. So the work
and the Democratic Party nationally has done a terrible job
at incubating the state of Florida. They don't help the
state party. The state party doesn't help itself very well.
You know, there's a variety of reasons why Florida sort

(35:19):
of under punches. It's voters, right, This is a state
that you know is still probably a fifty three forty
seven state if both parties were equally funded. You know,
it's a leaner. I think I still think Florida's light red,
not dark red yet, but you know, the incompetence of
the state Democratic Party makes it seem like it's dark red.

(35:42):
So that's why I put it in the fifth slot here,
because I do think the political environment could shift in
such a way where we could see and Ashley Moody
is not a household name and it is an appointed senator.
If you told me in October fifteenth, twenty twenty six,
you had a poll showing that race forty five forty
with the Democratic nominee in Moody in a political environment

(36:05):
that looks like a growing blue wave, which at the
moment to me, it looks like that. That's what's happening.
Florida gets more competitive. It's just inevitable that you would
see that. So Florida's fifth on my list. But I'm
not yet impressed with the Canaid. I almost think it's
too expensive to put in this category. To actually take
it from from could we make it competitive to look,

(36:26):
it's kind of competitive to actually competitive. Fourth on the
list of Kentucky, it's an open seat. This is the
Mitch mcconnal'syat. There's actually we've interviewed one of the Kentucky candidates,
Amy McGrath is running again.

Speaker 2 (36:42):
There is you know, the.

Speaker 1 (36:44):
Republican Party in Kentucky is pretty divided, right because it's
there's some pretty strong anti Trump Republicans in the state
of Kentucky. The retiring Senator Mitch McConnell ran Paul Thomas Massey.
The potential for the Republican primer to turn into a
bloody mess, it's already kind of that way, right. Look,

(37:06):
I think Andy Barr if he's the nominee, it's very
difficult to be. But I also think Daniel Cameron would
be a pretty you know, a strong potential Senate nominee
as well. But what if one of them aren't the
nominee and it is, like I said, it is nasty.
The primary campaign is heated up. There is a sense
on the Republican side that it doesn't matter what happens,

(37:30):
it can be as bloody as you want. Sometimes that
mindset might leave a potential nominee weaker than they should be.
We saw that with Jade Vance out of his Ohio primary,
which was a bloody mess and ended up creating a
much more competitive general than was necessary. All the ingredients

(37:51):
are there in Kentucky for that. So it's I tell you,
this is one of those things that if there were
a more if the Democratic Party had a slightly better
brand and slightly better leadership, Andy Basheer would be the
Senate nominee in that campaign and we'd be talking about

(38:11):
Kentucky Senate.

Speaker 2 (38:12):
A lot differently.

Speaker 1 (38:13):
But the fact that that's not even on the table,
and there wasn't and there wasn't anybody with the heft
to go to Andy Basheer and sort of beg him
and twist his arm in a way that could talk
him into it. I think it just shows you how
weak the party is. And I think Andy Basheer certainly
has his eye. I think he thinks his skills translate
better to a potential presidential campaign. But again, all the

(38:34):
ingredients of there in Kentucky for something late to surge.
If the Republican primaries as messy it is, again, I'm
assuming only if this environment continues to be as poor
as it appears to be for the party that's currently
in power. Number three on this list for me is
Lindsay Graham in South Carolina. I know we've been here

(38:55):
before them with the with Jamie Harrison and all that
waste money, just like with Amy McGrath and that wasted money.
But I would argue that six years ago the political
environment wasn't as weak for Republicans. It was a very
competitive environment. What does that Senate race look like in
twenty twenty six without Trump on the ballot? Is Lindsay

(39:16):
Graham wearing out as welcome? Does the mess that is
the South Carolina Governor's race sort of put an entire
pall over the South Carolina Republican brand? Look, South Carolina
Democratic Party is very similar to the Florida Democratic Party.
They really underperformed their potential. You know, there is a

(39:40):
stronger floor in South Carolina.

Speaker 2 (39:43):
I mean, you know, I'm sorry.

Speaker 1 (39:45):
South Carolina is surrounded by competitive states Georgia to the south,
North Carolina to the north. They just had they've had
bad leadership in the state party week voter registration campaigns.
It is South Carolina and Mississippi are the two. And
I've just previewed the next Senate race on my list.
But these are two places where if the Democratic Party

(40:06):
invested serious resources and voter registration campaigns and sort of
had a better message for rural blacks in South Carolina
and Mississippi in general. But it's a problem they have
across the black belt in the South. Is Democrats underperform
among in all rural communities, not just rural white communities
and but a rural Latino communities and rural black communities.

(40:29):
It has been a it is it has been a
nagging problem for them, and they've done very little to
fix it, very little investment. And this gets it to,
you know, is the you know, does the party see
the opportunity that's staring them in the face or have
they Is it being run by a frankly, a bunch
of people who live on the coasts and and just
have written off and assume all rural America is white

(40:52):
when in the South, not all rural America is white.
And I think that's been a huge missed opportunity, uh
in states like North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia
in general, I mean, the only reason they throw money
at Georgia is do the Atlanta growth of the Atlanta suburbs.

Speaker 2 (41:08):
They're not.

Speaker 1 (41:09):
They're not doing as good of a job in the
rural black communities as they could be. So anyway, I again,
South Carolina's another one of those there's a mess. You know,
yes it's in the governor's race, but that it's just
creating a bad juju if you will. And you know,
Lindsay's his own worst enemy at times, and his mouth

(41:31):
can certainly inspire donors to give money to candidates in
ways that that that he may and he may have
tied himself too much to Trump in ways that are
not you know, you know, Lindsay's problem is is I
think that there are there is this center right voter
in South Carolina that assume Lindsay was one of them.
And I think they still think Lindsay is one of them.

(41:54):
But he's so desperate to stay in Trump's good graces
that he he sort of does some retort gymnastics that's
embarrassing to some voters. They just have not had the
right Democrat to to to sort of expose that side
of Lindsay. But you look this is a guy Lindsay
reminds me of Chuck Schumer in this respect. These are

(42:15):
two two politicians who've had a really impressive career who
are probably here a term too long. Had they left
a term sooner they'd be they'd have they'd have been lying.
They literally would have been treated as lions of the Senate,
you know, if they had left on their own terms.

(42:35):
And yes, you could say they're going to be leaving
on their own terms. But in some ways, you know,
it's it's they're they're they they're kind of here past
their cell by date, and the longer they're here, I
think the smaller they've become in some ways, And and
I think that's the danger here for Lindsay. Uh, on
this one. And that's why again I put it in here.

(42:55):
I think that it's it's another political environment, right, you know,
you me how South Carolina working class voters are going
to benefit from high tariffs and things like that. So, uh,
it's it's a it's it's again. I'm not saying it's
going to happen, but it's if if it does happen.

(43:16):
It's one of the five races I would put in there.
Number two on my list is Mississippi, as I previewed,
almost the identical situation uh as South Carolina. But you
also have an incumbent who's just not hasn't left a
heavy footprint yet in the state, Cindy Hyde Smith. You know,
Roger Wicker is definitely more of the senior senator and

(43:38):
he's on the higher profile committees. He's sort of involved
in the higher profile issues. I don't think Cindy Hyde
Smith has the same hold over over her voters or
her seat that are previous senators from Mississippi have have
had on their Senate seats. So look, she's you know
it is. This is actually her campaign for a second

(44:01):
full term. She got she got appointed there two years
and then second full term. So look that the Democrats
have an interesting candidate here in somebody that was put
up for a judicial nomination rejected.

Speaker 2 (44:20):
Again.

Speaker 1 (44:20):
Mississippi a state we've seen it in the governor's races.
It can be a competitive state. Takes a little bit
of work, but this is one of those where come October,
I fully expect a poll show in forty five forty
Sydney hind Smith and where there's a striking distance, where
there is a debate about whether how all in should

(44:41):
Democrats go on Mississippi Senate. And then number one on
my list of the of the five is actually Montana.
You know, Montana is an R plus ten state. It
is you know, in some ways not having a high
profile challenger this time like Steve Danes had the last time.

Speaker 2 (44:59):
But the thing is, might might.

Speaker 1 (45:00):
Be more beneficial right when when John Tester ran the
first time, he was kind of the outsider. When Brian
Schweitzer ran the first time, the outsider, Steve Bullock, you know,
was seen as as an outsider. So I think Dane's
a pretty savvy politician. So I don't think he's going
to get caught napping maybe the way some of these
other incumbents could get caught napping. But Montana's also not

(45:24):
a hard right state, and they're going to be pretty sensitive,
especially if corruption starts to pop. Montana voters are a
bit more sensitive to corruption issues I think in general,
and a bit less tolerant of it no matter whose
side is doing it. And if that becomes you know,

(45:44):
sort of gets into the ecosystem in the campaign ecosystem,
what Trump's been doing with pardons and the self enrichment
and all of that. You know, I think there's a reason.
If you've noticed Steve Danes keeps a pretty low profile,
he does not want to necessarily pop his head up
on this front. It is Look, Montana is a populist,
it's a right leaning state, but there's a it's a

(46:06):
populous state, and it is one of those you can
get on the wrong side, and the Democrats are well
organized in the state. So the point is is that
I think these are five races nobody's talking about at
the moment. Nobody believes are going to be competitive. Nobody
believes maybe nobody at the d SEC is even looking
at it. But I promise you, if this is as

(46:27):
as bad of a political environment as it looks like
it's growing into for Republicans, one of these five, if
not more of them, but one of those five Florida, Kentucky,
South Carolina, Mississippi, Montana will be a seriously targeted race
and might actually flip come election Day twenty twenty six.
If this trajectory of where the political environment is going

(46:48):
stays on the same trajectory, there's a reason results matter
more than promises, just like there's a reason Morgan and
Morgan is America's largest injury law firm. For the last
thirty five years, they've recovered twenty five billion dollars for
more than half a million clients. It includes cases where
insurance companies offered next to nothing, just hoping to get

(47:09):
away with paying as little as possible. Morgan and Morgan
fought back ended up winning millions. In fact, in Pennsylvania,
one client was awarded twenty six million dollars, which was
a staggering forty times the amount that the insurance company
originally offered. That original offer six hundred and fifty thousand
dollars twenty six million, six hundred and fifty thousand dollars.
So with more than one thousand lawyers across the country,

(47:30):
they know how to deliver for everyday people. If you're injured,
you need a lawyer, You need somebody to get your back.
Check out for Thepeople dot Com, Slash podcast, or dial
pound Law Pound five to nine law on your cell phone.
And remember all law firms are not the same, So
check out Morgan and Morgan.

Speaker 2 (47:48):
Their fee is free.

Speaker 1 (47:49):
Unless they win, all right, So with that, let's get
to semester as check. My first question comes.

Speaker 2 (48:00):
From Nate Nate's in Yorkville, Illinois.

Speaker 1 (48:03):
Nate confesses I almost skipped the Clay Travis episode, but
I'm glad I gave it a listen. It was a guest.
It was a great conversation. He came across as thoughtful
and engaging. Thanks for pushing us outside our bubbles and
featuring voices we might not normally hear. I also fully
agree with your Thanksgiving take best holiday by far and
your Turkey Day top five a spot on, especially the
pumpkin pie thoughts Nate podcast fan since the nineteen forty

(48:25):
seven days.

Speaker 2 (48:26):
That's super old school. Appreciate it, Nate.

Speaker 1 (48:28):
Thanks for saying that, Like, that's what I'm trying to do,
And in some ways, I hope Matt Higgins is a
similar type of conversation, trying to expose people, to expose lists,
expose you know that this is I just look at
it this way. These are people I'm trying to learn
something from, trying to understand better, and if it's helping
me understand something better, I'm assuming it's.

Speaker 2 (48:49):
Going to help you understand something better.

Speaker 1 (48:50):
So that's kind of the way I just view myself
as sort of what helps me sort of get smarter
about both sides of the aisle, understanding the as I
call myself a political anthropologist. You know, I want to
understand folks that live in a variety of bubbles, and

(49:12):
I don't. I'm not going to presume we just have
two bubbles in this country. I think we have quite
a few. So I appreciate that. And I left out,
by the way my numbers, I left out the single
most important thing I do every Thanksgiving, and that is
I make this turkey chili with the leftover turkey. And

(49:32):
the real question is how long? The question is how
long is it? Is it okay to keep around? Because
it is one of those chili's it gets better every
day for a period of time. Then there's the point
then everything starts to taste old, right, But there's something
about putting all the flavors together. You know. Today, certainly
I'm taping here on a Tuesday. I had it a

(49:54):
lunch again for lunch today. It's we're still in peak.
I think we're still in it's it's in peak mode.
But I'm probably now on the other side of the hill.
Is it worth freezing or not? Would you freeze leftover
at chilling? I am probably not going to do it,
but I'm contemplating it. So I would love I'd love

(50:17):
your thoughts on that, if any of you want to
chime in that. All right, next question comes from Dan.
He says, Hey, Chuck, what is the public to make
of all the recent attempted censures in the House of Representatives?
Some of it is dem on dem and GOP and gop.

Speaker 2 (50:27):
Is it based in a.

Speaker 1 (50:28):
Sense of morality, opportunistic acts, grinding or both? Dan, you know,
it's interesting, Dan. I talked to Mike Turner about this
on my new sphere show. He brought this up to
me as a Republican from Ohio. But he noted how
at the time of our interview, sort of this he
had was sort of almost a similar observation that you did,
which is like, what the hell is this? What is it?

(50:49):
I mean, you know where it is. But it was
his way of pointing out of what a terrible place
it is to work right now.

Speaker 2 (50:58):
He chalked it up.

Speaker 1 (50:59):
To being up away from Washington for over a month.
Mike Johnson's decision to keep the House out of DC
during the shutdown just drove members crazy, and so it
was like, you know, it's like you kink da hoose
and then young kinked it and whoom right, and when
people came back to Washington, they came back ready to go.

Speaker 2 (51:22):
Right.

Speaker 1 (51:22):
So you had Marie Glusen Camper's going, what the hell's
Chewy Garciado? Right? That was the dem On dem one
where she's like, that was an underhanded move. If we
think Trump's regging an election, that's no different. We should
denounce it. By the way, I think MGP is right,
I am. I think Marie Glusen camp Perez is one
of the If I would to say, who the if

(51:43):
I were to do my best Barbara Walters and who's
the five most interesting Democrats right now to talk to,
she'd be in my top five list on that one.
She's she's fascinating to me, and I think that there's
a there's a populist honesty to her that I think
is infectious and fascinating and you know, definitely worth Uh.

(52:08):
She's trust me. I'm trying to book her. I'm going
to bring her to you as soon as we can
get her to say, agree to agree to an interview.
So some of it is the members blame on that,
but I think some of it is just simply the
current political environment, right, think about it. The Democrats are
unhappy with their leadership, and they're unhappy with what they're
having to deal with Donald Trump, and they're really mad

(52:30):
about Joe Biden still, so it's just a cranky group
of Democrats. Republicans feel as if they've been pushed aside,
particularly after the shutdown. They feel as if they do
nothing but to you know, go back to Marjorie Taylor
Green statement, they feel as if they do nothing but
defend Trump and all they get is grief and return

(52:51):
or they get set aside, or they get dealt out.
So even though in some ways this is a Republican
governing renaissance, in theory could be right. You have controlled
the House, the Senate, and the presidency, and the president
has control of his party in a way that no
president has had. Frankly, you know, Obama didn't have a

(53:12):
grip like this under Democrats, and maybe for a temporary
period Bush had a grip on the Republicans like this
after nine to eleven, but not.

Speaker 2 (53:21):
Not like this.

Speaker 1 (53:24):
And so in theory it should be a golden age
for legislating, and yet it hasn't. Right, instead, Trump wants
to sign executive orders. He doesn't want to bother watching
letting the sausage be made. So I think it's that
nobody's happy, right. House Republicans aren't happy that they don't
get to govern, and House Democrats are unhappy at their

(53:47):
position and are pissed off at all their leaders for
they believe putting them in this place. So you put
it all together, and it's just think about your own
bad day. I think about this, and I I will
you know, I've been this way as a boss. I've
been this way as a parent. Right, you've had a
bad day and then somebody does something that's just slightly annoying,

(54:11):
might be an employee, might be a kid. Isn't worth
you losing your cool about, But you lose you're cool
because you're already upset about sixteen other things. That's the
equivalent of I think the situation that the House of
Representatives is feeling these days, And I just think that's
the way anybody in elective politics feels this way right now.

(54:31):
Everybody feels like they're all out, that they all are
out for themselves, not because they want to be, because
they don't think they have any other choice because they
really don't trust anybody else to look out for themselves.
Next question comes from Randall van der Vahal from Lighten, Netherlands.
I hope leading or lighten my apologies, he says, as

(54:53):
a listener from the Netherlands, I struggle to understand how
so many still support leaders who behave irresponsibly and unpredictably.
It feels like both Europe and the US are losing
a shared sense of purpose with real leadership and short supply.
I agree Europe should take more responsibility for its own security,
but we need leaders who think beyond themselves. How do
we get accountable, responsible leaders into power again? And what
needs to change in our democracies to make that possible.

(55:16):
So this is where I think populism and nationalism gets contagious,
and it's the wrong type of contagious. And as leader
of the free world the United States, how you know
we set an example right whatever whatever posture we take
are when we're leaning in as as leader of the
free world in a more internationalists posture, say in the

(55:39):
era of Frankly from Eisenhower to Obama, in general, right
we viewed we did every president between Eisenhower and Obama
came into office believing America was leader of the free world,
and we put that in quotes there. Free world, believe

(56:00):
that the relationship with Europe was second to none, that
it was the single most important relationship there was, and
that democracy was the ultimate goal. Freedom and democracy was
the ultimate goal.

Speaker 2 (56:18):
The media that that was going to be.

Speaker 1 (56:20):
Our number one export over time. But in many ways
we set an example. So how we behave is how
other countries think it's okay to behave. And as we
sort of became more nationalistic, other countries get more nationalistic.
When we decide to direct tariff barriers.

Speaker 2 (56:37):
Other countries decide to erect tariff barriers.

Speaker 1 (56:40):
And so you end up it. And so this is
a case where I think the United States and yeah,
you could say Brexit was sort of a sort of
a starting gun that was fired on this movement towards nationalism,
but that the collective move towards nationalism. And this is
you know, the last time we were in a position

(57:01):
like this. You know, we ended up in a couple
of world wars. You know, we had forms of nationalism, arguably,
or how we got into World War One, and certainly
how we got into World War two. So I think
that's I think that is at the root of all this.
Right the more when when America becomes more isolationists, more protectionists,

(57:26):
well so does everybody else, because it's you know, you're
you're going to behave like the you know, like the
big dog is going to behave And so I think
that has a huge part of it.

Speaker 2 (57:36):
I think that.

Speaker 1 (57:39):
We do. We are in the middle of an economic transition,
and this is a major one. We haven't had an
economic transition like this in over one hundred years, and
the last time we had it when we went from
an a grarian to industrial. Think about all the revolutions
that happened across the globe. Right, we had the Russian Revolution,
we had the fall of the Ottoman Empire, we had
the First World basically the First Great War we called it,

(58:00):
where it felt like the entire globe was fighting each other.
But in some ways that was due to fear of
what was coming next. Right, the Teutonic place were shifting
in geopolitics, the United States was becoming a world power,
and the powers that were the dominant powers of the

(58:20):
eighteenth and nineteenth century we're trying to hang onto power, right,
So we are in the middle, and I think we
can't underestimate we are in the middle of this great
transition from an industrial to whatever this new economy is
going to look like, this tech driven, service driven AI
driven Right, we know this is going to dramatically change

(58:42):
the nature of work, and ultimately, over time it's probably
going to be to the benefit of humanity. But the
transition is going to be awful, just like the Industrial
Revolution was to the overall benefit of humanity when you
look at it through one hundred year prism. But the
first twenty years of the end utual revolution was terrible
if you look at it in terms of livelihoods lost

(59:05):
and things like that. So this is where I play
sort of amateur historian, and I said, let's take a
step back and realize, this is a moment in time. Now,
why are we in this moment in time? I try
to comfort myself by sort of trying to at least
understand how we got here, and we kind of know

(59:25):
how we're going to get out. The question is can
we get out without a world war? Can we get
out without internal civil wars, without dramatic sort of ideological revolutions? Right,
will the transition be smoother than it was between the industry,
between the agrarian and the industrial. You know, that was
a very violent transition when when you look at it

(59:49):
in hindsight, we don't we don't necessarily always cover it
that way. We just sort of like, ah, and then
the industrial revolution began, and yeah, we had some child
labor laws, we had something to that, right. You know,
it is like when we were in the moment. I
don't think people felt like, oh, some man, this is
gonna be great. Everybody's gonna have electricity, and everybody's gonna
have We're all gonna someday just sit on couches and

(01:00:11):
watch stuff picture, moving pictures on video screens. Right. You know,
people didn't know what their lives were going to look
like thirty years later. Then they had no clue what
their life was going to be like thirty years later
because that unknown was because it was unknown, it was
all fear. So I think that here's here's why I

(01:00:34):
always say, trust the voters. The voters eventually figured out.
I think the voters are starting to figure it out
in Europe. I think the voters are figuring it will
continue to figure it out in this country.

Speaker 2 (01:00:46):
And in stability.

Speaker 1 (01:00:49):
You know, there's always a a bias towards stability, okay,
whatever that is. And at some point, you know, we're
gonna we're going to get there. But I think we're
in the middle of something that is just simply we're
in the middle of a rocking you know, vote and
choppy waters and it's just going to be a while

(01:01:10):
to the water settle. I know that wasn't the best answer,
but I think that that's the larger reason why we're here.
But I also think that, you know, ultimately, people vote
based on their own livelihoods, and there's been a lot

(01:01:31):
of promises made by many of these nationalists and many
of these popularis and they're not being able to fulfill them.
And I think and instead it looks like there's just
been nothing but grift and graft. I think that's going
to be how these movements end. That's usually how many
a political movement ends. It ends in corruption. That's what
this one feels like, at least in this country. Next question,

(01:01:52):
I love it you signed it your champ. It's pretty
neat to end up with the nickname champ. I hope
you're a champ in something. But anyway, this next question
is just from Champ, you better have won something that
got you the nickname, and I kind of think it's
got to be at least high school championship are above Like,

(01:02:13):
if you're gonna come at me with a middle school championship,
I don't know if that's worthy of the Champ nickname.

Speaker 2 (01:02:19):
That's just my opinion.

Speaker 1 (01:02:21):
But what am I doing insulting my listeners like this?
So no insult Champ. You know, I'm just let me
know what you want.

Speaker 2 (01:02:28):
Hey check.

Speaker 1 (01:02:28):
I'm curious about why President Biden seems to be facing
challenges with donor support first presidential library, especially compared to
past presidents like Clinton or Obama, who secured major deals
in funding post being in office. Reports suggests donors are
hesitant due to the twenty twenty four election outcome, concerns
over Biden's South, then fear of Trump error retaliation. Why
do you think these post presidency opportunities are so different
for Biden? And why might donors be so reluctant despite

(01:02:50):
having the right to support him. So, look, I think
it's just donor anger at the moment. And these weren't
Biden donors, right, These were Democratic Party donors who always
donated to who the Democratic nominee was, right, so they
were their loyalty was to the party before it was
loyalty to Biden. So I think there's a little bit

(01:03:12):
of that, and it goes back to this has been
a problem Biden's always had, right his his his loyal
set of supporters have been very small. It's always been
at small, tight circle. But there weren't you know, he
was never a prolific fundraiser before he became president, so
he didn't have like a donor network that akin to
what most presidents have. And when you have a donor

(01:03:33):
network like that, it's easy to tap into them for
the library. Obama had a devoted donor network that was
the Obama donor network. It wasn't one that belonged to
the Democratic Party more than it belonged to him.

Speaker 2 (01:03:44):
This is also true of Trump. This is also true
of Bush. It's also true of Clinton. It's also true.

Speaker 1 (01:03:50):
Both Bush, Bushes, Reagan. I can keep going on and on.
It is you know, even Carter had his set of
his set of donors. I'm surprised that Biden doesn't have
more folks in Delaware and in Philadelphia chipping in right,
that was always his sort of community was the Philadelphia
business community and the banking sort of the banking industry

(01:04:13):
of Delaware or you know, because of the incorporation rules
that they have in Delaware that there was certainly a
lot of He never had any trouble raising pac money
as a senator put it that way, but he was
never the most prolific. So but I think so, I
think you have the main you have Democratic donors who
donated to Biden but never considered themselves Biden donors, still

(01:04:36):
pretty angry at him, And so I don't think there's
so you have that issue. You know, he could use
a sugar daddy, like one big donor that might be,
you know that might really want to have a presidential
library at the University of Delaware, might really want to
see something like that, or if they wanted to see
it at Penn. Yeah, it's definitely supposed to be in Delaware.

(01:04:58):
He announced that in September. Here's my guess, and what
usually is the secret to finding presidential donors? Wealthy foreigners
and so uh in that sense, I do wonder if

(01:05:19):
Trump does scare off, if you know, if he's gonna
raise money anonymously but I don't think that's in Biden's nature,
and that would make people uncomfortable. I do think there
is some concern by some major donors that they don't
want to. They don't want to, they don't want to
that they they believe, but donating to Biden in a

(01:05:41):
public way in the Biden library would put a target
on their back for the Trump administration. I think that
fear is real, and I don't think it's unfounded in
in defense here, but I do think, uh, the biggest
reason why he's had so much trouble is.

Speaker 2 (01:06:01):
His anger. All right. Next question comes from Adam Shlip.
I hope I pronounced that correctly.

Speaker 1 (01:06:09):
Hey, listen to your episode on MTG, and Trump reminded
me of Benedict Arnold, specifically how he flipped not for
ideology but for vanity and money. Trump, like Arnold, seems
to have no real convictions, just a price. Even the
British Canadians eventually rejected Arnold because no one trusts someone
who sells out their own cause. Could Trump's legacy follow
a similar arc if the true believers eventually walk away?
You know, Adam, I think that's quite possible, right, you know,

(01:06:32):
I have said that, I think the biggest problem Republicans
face in general over the next two years is I
don't think Donald Trump cares about the future of the
Republican Party. He didn't care about the Republican Party before
he got into it. In fact, when he got there,
he said, you know, all he did was criticize the party.
All he said is what a terrible party it had been.

(01:06:55):
They'd had stupid ideas or stupid people, you know, the
typical Trump word and analysis. And if you told me
in ten years Republicans hadn't elected, hadn't gotten control of
the House, or the Senator, hadn't elected a president, whether
Trump would be happy or sad about that if it

(01:07:17):
were deemed that, you know, boy, only Trump seems to
be the only Republican that can win elections. That's the
legacy Trump would actually like the most, not that he helped.
You know, if there were four straight presidents under the
umbrella of MAGA post Trump, would that make them happy

(01:07:39):
or would it make them happier if nobody could win
that didn't have the last name of Trump? Right, I
think we all know the answer to this, and I
think deep down most Republicans know this too. He does
not care about the future of the party. He cares
about him, and that's the stuff in the last two
years of a presidency and why these midterms, and this

(01:08:02):
is why I think that some people are really hesitant
about this redistricting gambit because they're trying This is all
about Trump staving off lame ducks status for about six months,
which is all it would do if he somehow holds
the House. But he's just trying to preserve his own
status at the expense perhaps of making Republicans more vulnerable

(01:08:23):
in the long term. I think that's why you're seeing
pushback in the places that I would expect it. Indiana
is one of those kind of states that they're Republicans
before they're Trump people. And you know, Utah's another one,
but it's a It's certainly a place that I would
and I'm not surprised to see this. But I also

(01:08:44):
think that there's there's a little bit the I think
there's the average Indiana Republican I think thinks that there's
thinks about the world beyond Trump, and I think that
that's that's what you be seeing this. I you know,
I happen to think that the I will go this

(01:09:08):
way as One of my favorite movie lines to use
when talking about the industry of television is from the
movie Cocktail. Everything else, everything ends badly, or else it
wouldn't end. It's kind of how I feel about the Trump,
how Trump's ten ure is going to end. And by
the way, this is you know his you know, he
was a disaster for Atlantic City. He eventually had his

(01:09:31):
TV show canceled due to low ratings. Right, everything in
Trump's life, every sort of six or seven year cycle
has ended badly or else it wouldn't have ended. I
suspect his political career is it's hard to imagine that's
a legacy that's going to get better rather than worse.

(01:09:51):
All right, last question for this episode. It comes from
Andy from Indy speaking of Indiana. Hey, Chuck, as a
millennial ouf and here from my peers that the political
system feels broken and any honest critique tends to spiral
into both parties are bad. The constant partisan battling has
left many of us exhausted in dissillusion. While a viable
third party seems unlikely anytime soon, do you think we
could see a mixed party presidential ticket, say a Democrat

(01:10:12):
with a Republican VP. Would love to hear your take
on any combos you think could actually work. Andy from Indy.
You know, look my old mentor, the late Doug Bailey,
he had a vision in two thousand and eight. He
thought he feared that a presidential election between which if
starting in two thousand and five, the two front runners

(01:10:35):
were loosely Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton. Right, this is
before McCain didn't seem like as where the Republicans were
going to go, and he thought that was going to
be an opportunity for a bipartisan ticket, that Rudy v. Hillary,

(01:10:57):
that Rudy v. Hillary would be so divisive that it
would open the door for.

Speaker 2 (01:11:02):
A potential unity ticket.

Speaker 1 (01:11:04):
You know, think boy in two thousand and eight, I
think I think he had a vision. He hoped it
would be an Obama McCain or McCain Obama right like
type of mindset. Or I think John Huntsman as sort
of a Republican on one end, or a I'm trying

(01:11:24):
to think of another Democrat at the time, maybe Mark Pryor,
who was a conservative Democrat from from from Arkansas, but
something under that category. You know, I think the only
here's where I think that you know, I look at
we've had three major our three major third party candidates

(01:11:46):
for president in the last say one hundred and twenty years. Right,
one was Teddy Roosevelt in nineteen twelve, one was George
Wallace nineteen sixty eight, and one was Ross pro.

Speaker 2 (01:12:00):
In nineteen ninety two.

Speaker 1 (01:12:02):
And they did sort of help tip the election right,
and they certainly influenced right Wallace's success, which nearly handed
the election to Humphrey even though he was winning some
of these But it certainly motivated Nixon to pursue a
Southern strategy for the Republican Party and led to the

(01:12:24):
eventual sort of Republicanization of the South. It sort of
convinced Nixon to shift the Republican Party to the South
for the future. Obviously, Teddy Roosevelt handing the presidency to
the Democrats led to a different outcome on a variety

(01:12:45):
of things, but sort of was an attempt to sort
of reform both parties. I don't know if it fully did,
to be honest, because a very corrupt Republican Party followed
Wilson in the twenties, and so in some ways Teddy
failed to do what he was trying to do, which
form the Republican Party. We didn't get that version of
the Republican Party really until Eisenhower. And I would argue

(01:13:07):
that Perode had an impact on both parties fairly positively, right,
got Republicans not being so reflexively free trade, and got
Democrats to be a bit more concerned about the debt
and deficit and more into fiscally responsible things.

Speaker 2 (01:13:22):
So I could picture eate.

Speaker 1 (01:13:24):
You know, we have sort of we have a trust
deficit in this country, and that's where a bipartisan ticket
could help restore that. If we're trying to restore trust
in some institutions, if we're trying to reform institutions, doing
it on a bipartisan level is about the only way
you're going to get collected buy in. And if you know,
if we feel as it, you know, to me, if

(01:13:46):
the country, I think we need.

Speaker 2 (01:13:49):
By something like this, some.

Speaker 1 (01:13:52):
Sort of third party or to sort of to sort
of force both parties to think of themselves in broader terms.

Speaker 2 (01:13:58):
Right, I don't think either party.

Speaker 1 (01:14:00):
I feel like they're both in retreat as far as
they're you know, not thinking about creating broad majorities. But
thinking about creating deep majority deep majorities, but more.

Speaker 2 (01:14:10):
Narrow and.

Speaker 1 (01:14:14):
So you know, you look out there. I will tell
you this if you you know Wes Moore, uh, Spencer
Cox right, And I don't care what order you.

Speaker 2 (01:14:25):
Give it to me.

Speaker 1 (01:14:26):
If we're looking for a pair of leaders, a bipartisan
set of leaders who who who singular goal was to
be pastors for patriotism, to sort of restore the idea
of America before country before party, I think that would

(01:14:46):
be your best ticket. And I don't care which order
you put it in, but I think I think both
of those gentlemen do govern thinking about their state before
thinking about their party. And you know, I don't know
how many I don't know how many elected officials i'd
put in that category, but they're you know, they're two people,

(01:15:11):
Mark Kelly, John Curtis, another Utah politician, John Curtis as
a senator, you know Rafael Warnock and James Langford, the
two ordained pastors in the Senate. That would be an
interesting pairing to me. It's all about what moment are
we trying to meet right at the time that you're
trying to put this together. Is it to restore trust

(01:15:34):
in government. Is it to restore faith in the country,
is it to heal the country? Is it to try
to unify the country? Right, I think it there's you know,
I think there's different skill sets. But when I start
to think about certain people who I think have the
ability to because it would in order to work, in
order to pair up with somebody on the other side

(01:15:55):
of that, you got to leave your party. So who
who could I picture being comfortable leaving their party under
a circumstance like that. And you know, look, I could
you know, I'll give you another odd pair that you
would say, what are you talking about? But you know,
I could see Ran Paul and a John Tester, you know,
type of type of pairing when you're looking for bipartisan

(01:16:18):
pairs that I think could work together again depending on
you know, if they were depending on what problem you
were trying to solve. But I you know, Mark Kelly
is in that category, John Curtis, Lisa Rakowski, I'd probably
put I'd have put a John Cornyn in that category.

(01:16:38):
I had to put a Build Cassidy. We know Builcassidy
actually showed some interest in the no labels. In the
no label situation when no Labels was seeing if they
could recruit a bipartisan ticket.

Speaker 2 (01:16:49):
You know, I think they.

Speaker 1 (01:16:51):
They were dreaming of a of a mansion Hogan ticket,
Joe Manchin and Larry Hogan. So you know, look, I
love these fantasy conversations, but I am am de size
the word fantasy.

Speaker 2 (01:17:01):
A lot of times.

Speaker 1 (01:17:02):
It's very hard for these guys to leave their party.
It's so hard for them to leave their party. They
have a hard time doing it. And you have to
leave your party to do something like this, you have
to be done, and it's so you know, and for
this to succeed, it requires both parties going to their extremes,

(01:17:22):
and usually we don't have that right. When one party
goes too far one way, usually the other party then
tries to become the party for the center right, tries
to absorb the center and so which is Frankly, I
think it been a very effective way to create a
check and balance in our country between the two parties.
It's when it's in those weird moments when both parties
split apart. Maybe we're oncoming to one of those moments,

(01:17:47):
and if we do, then perhaps there is room for
this yere. But I ultimately don't think we're going to
be there, and obviously my dog Kelly, she is ready
for this podcast to end. So with that, I will
see you in twenty four hours

All Episodes

Chuck’s Commentary - Republicans Avoid Disaster In Tennessee, But The Midterms Look Great For Democrats + Top 5 Senate Seats A “Wave” Election Could Put In Play

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Crime Junkie

The Brothers Ortiz

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Crime Junkie

The Brothers Ortiz

All Episodes

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang